I like that, however, I do think that if theories such as evolution and the big bang are being taught, why shouldn't creationism? As it is, there isn't much scientific evidence to PROVE evolution or the big bang (send me links if I'm wrong, but from what I've studied this is what I gathered), so why not teach another subject that doesn't have huge scientific evidence either.

I don't mean this to say that the big bang or evolution is false, I don't know that, I just think if theories are to be taught in school, so should religious theories. We learned about native american, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, and some Chinese religious beliefs, why not christian? It seems to be such a threat to scientific beliefs. I personally believe that the earth took billions of years to create, on that note though:

The Bible doesn't say that God just up and created the whole earth from scratch, it says that the earth was already there, but without form, meaning it was rugged with no life. Which means the earth had been there a while, no one said the earth just popped into it's position in space in seven days...also when the bible refers to days it refers to 1000s of years, possibly more in the seven creation days, hebrew translation says that God "began to create" on each day, why does that sound so odd to so many?

(sorry for double post)

There are tons of scientific evidences in favour of evolutionism and none in favour of creationism
Thus, evolutionism must be taught and creationism must not
As simple as that

@AlbertoT: please leave links to support it.

@LarryLaffer: funny video

These kinds of statements are plentiful when discussing evolution. Basically because there is "a ton of evidences". Alberto has said it so it must be true. Thats great science.

Or they just make ad hominem attacks against creationist ideas and personal attacks and mocking against Christians. They do this because they know that they have no evidence whatsoever.

Starting with the fact that they cant explain where matter came from,leading to the next impossible obstacle of life evolving from non-living matter I have found that every link of the ladder of evolutionary theory is far from proven.

From abiogenesis you proceed to the sheer impossibility of eukaryote evolution w/sexual reproduction and then asking why no new phyla have emerged since the Cambrian period? The missing fossils, stasis vs. punctuated equilibrium, its all really the biggest, most convoluted deceit in human history.

The ONLY reason why scientist dont want to accept creation is because creation demands a creator and they dont want to accept a God because they dont want to accept responsibility for their own morality. If they can erase God, then they think they can erase their own sins. However, their own sin becomes more and more apparent as they twist truth further and further to fit the ridiculous lie we know as evolution.

A link ?

Would you ask for a link for the Mendel's laws or the Newton's laws or ...

Evolutionism, a part for some details, is no longer a matter of discussion

agreed Nitro, but the problem also stands with alot of the "religious" (not christian, religious) leaders that claim christianity, but babble on at how many people are horrible sinners and offend, the issue is that this is wrong as well, and has lead science to completely disassociate science from christianity, and the same on the end of "religious people".

There is one problem though, the first rule of science is to seek evidence until any theory can be made law, or simply stay theory. Take the law of gravity for example, we don't know how gravity is "completely" controlled or why some things have gravity or not, however, the fact that gravity does exist makes it law, further testing can prove so, making it a law. Evolution on the other hand has not had "solid" proof that supports the theory, mainly because most of the bones that have been found are in different rock layers, and alot of the supposedly older ones are found above supposedly newer ones, meaning that the newer ones disprove that the creature evolved. For example, horse bones were found in rock, and other bones as well. The bones "seemed" to evolve from a three toed animal to a single toed horse, however, the bones were not found in the correct order, suggesting that the evolution could not have happened to that animal, because the one-toed version (hence the one we know today) was found in older rock forms that most of the ones in the supposed chain of bones. To me that sounds as evidence being twisted.

The problem is, when it comes to evolution, alot of the "facts" that are used to prove it, disprove the idea altogether, however, discarding the real facts, the evidence is put on display as if it were true evidence. The problem is, small bones cannot be used in the case unless the whole skeletal structure has been found, simply because the bone could have easily belonged to another creature, and with years of decay which still happens to old bones in rock, you cannot properly date the evidence, we can only use rock layers as a time frame, and I doubt that rock layers will switch around when the times change, so if it's found near the bottom, it existed at that time.

I do agree that the fact is that PEOPLE do not wish to believe what facts are placed in the way, simply put, there is plenty of evidence to support that God does exist. For instance, there are real medical reports of tumors and cancers being removed, without scarred tissue or any sign of surgery. When such cases are reported, the people were either: A) Christian, and praying B) Not a christian, but christians were praying for them C) Christian, praying, and other christians praying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's enough to base a theory on, and enough for scientific tests.

I do agree, however, with adaptation. Adaptation was the original theory, and does have evidence to support what has happened over the years, there is proof that depending on where something lives, it "adapts" to it's surroundings. This however, is different than an entire species turning into another species, or moving to another genus.

The problem is what Jesus summed up in a story; If people do not believe now, there is nothing that will make them believe. The fact is if God just opened up the heavens and said "What's up? I'm God." You would still not have everyone believing, there would be those that would try to sum it up in scientific terms as just an "unnatural phenomenon" while those that did believe in it, their generations below them would begin to throw it away and say "I didn't see it myself, I don't believe it.". The problem is, this already happened, this generation is still saying "I didn't see it myself, I don't believe it." despite the evidence shown to them. Simply put, they Won't believe until it is proven soon.

On-Topic: I still think that creationism should be taught in school with evolution and the big bang, simply because if a theorem such as these can be taught, why not our beliefs taught as a scientific theory as well.

Comparing Laws to Theory is like comparing apples to a human being. Laws are proven, they have significant support, such as the earth is not flat. Theorem have yet to be proven as facts and do need evidence to support them, if it is still a theory it has yet to be decided as truth or not.

For the law of gravity, I could drop an object and see it fall, I can also see that the moon rotates around our earth and all nine planets around the sun, and even if that was inconclusive enough, I could get pictures that prove they have been rotating and that a force was keeping them there.

For genetics I could find evidence linking specific genes to certain actions, appearances, etc. to conclude that genetics determines how a living thing is composed.

Yes, I need evidence for evolution, simply saying that there is evidence doesn't create evidence. Using evolution as an excuse doesn't work either.

Excellent point, but it's all about what offends people when it comes to this.

I don't think Christians would like it when we would treat their religion as a mythology just like all the others. Basically this is what you're asking for, if you'd want it to be taught in the same manner.



Evolution is treated as theory, not as law. But it currently still is the 'best there is', so yeah I can see why you think it's considered 'law'. There's plenty of evidence to prove most aspects of evolution, but not all. There are definitely things that aren't known yet.

We should be glad that science in general admits this and treats evolution as theory based on facts.. but not as flawless law. Many critics of evolution seem to totally discard this uhm paradigm as if it doesn't exist and as if scientists pretend to know everything.



Many of this is questionable at best, it's pretty unlikely that the Bible has any true historic value. There's actually more evidence for the contrary. Sure, some texts are old, but that doesn't mean that the stories told are really historic. Apart from that, the first texts that do seem to be authentic are at least 150 years after Jesus written down and some of the stories predate the Bible itself by a long long time... so, how can a story happen twice? Or even more often as many other cultures seem to have a similar story, predating the Bible by many years. Or was the Bible inspired by for example Sumerian mythology? I think the answer is dead obvious.



While I'm not sure about what exactly you are hinting on here, it still doesn't mean it has anything to do with divine creation as mentioned in the Bible. It basically means we still have plenty to discover. Don't forget that from a logic point of view, there has to have been a moment in time where there was nothing before something. At least.. I think so. Perhaps it's too difficult to grasp a scenario in which there has always been something, but still.



Complexity of a system is no proof for divine creation or intervention. In fact, there's no proof for design here, it just turned out to work as it is. In hindsight it doesn't say anything about whether it's coincidental or designed.



There are as many theories as there are different ideas on the subject to be honest.

In our schools a lot of theories are actually being taught during religion classes. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Christianity and so on. I'm sure the Spaghetti Monster got left out on purpose because it's mocking the whole thing (it did get mentioned during classes about 'agnoticism' I think, not sure), but we've even been taught about the Intelligent Design theory. I think this is great, but we've never been taught 'creationism' as a serious alternative to evolution for good reasons!!

Cheers

You will never accept the evidences for the simple reason that you dont want to accept the evidences
For example what you said in the last post is completely wrong

Darwin himself claimed that evolutionism should be refuted if even one only advanced organism should be found in an ancient layer but despite what you said , this has never happened

Getting back to the original topic

Creationism must not be taught at school being refuted by the vast majority of scientists
Fundamentalists may be disappointed but they must accept the rule of democracy same as anybody else

Nobody is allowed to remain ignorant because ignorant people are a danger for the society